the self replicating watch argument

[Speedwell]

So, clearly, you are conflating ideas. I used the word FACTUAL. You cannot say that because Darwin merely proposed a hypothesis that “natural selection” could explain origins, that such a thought represents a FACT. It does not. The problem with all of you who keep criticizing my posts is that you apparently don’t understand the most basic fact: that “evolution” cannot be equated to “evolutionary origins”. Please, quit conflating the two subjects. If Darwin had known what we know today, he would have known that what he called the process of natural selection DECREASES genetic diversity over time, meaning that in the shuffling of genes which produces offspring (in organisms that reproduce sexually) certain gene forms (i.e. alleles) commonly get removed from populations (at least certain populations under environmental stress, let's say), especially during the phenomenon called bottlenecking. Ironically, this phenomenon has been touted as very important to the production of new population phenotypes. And that is actually true, but the reason does not support naturalistic ORIGINS of genes.

Dogs demonstrate many different phenotypes than their ancestor, the Grey Wolf or something much like it. Yet, this does not mean that dogs somehow accumulated MORE GENES than their ancestor. It is a well-known fact that dogs have more diseases than the wolf and they live shorter lives than wolves live. Why? They have lost genetic diversity. So, the fact that you seem incapable of seeing or accepting is that as “evolution” happens (i.e. Wolf-to-dog), phenotypes can expand while the genotypes are actually contracting (for lack of a better way of explaining). This represents supreme irony that is inconsistent with Darwin’s theory, yet very consistent with Creation/I.D. theory.

You are quite right in observing that natural selection reduces the information content of the gene pool. It is the function of mutations to increase that content. A diverse (high information content) gene pool is required to produce sufficient variation on which natural selection can act. Thus both random mutation and natural selection are essential to evolution.
An example of the "bottlenecking" you refer to can be seen in forced selective breeding, where the selection is stringent and depletes the information content of the gene pool of the breeding population faster than it can be replaced by natural means.

 

[HitchSlap]

So, clearly, you are conflating ideas. I used the word FACTUAL. You cannot say that because Darwin merely proposed a hypothesis that “natural selection” could explain origins, that such a thought represents a FACT. It does not. The problem with all of you who keep criticizing my posts is that you apparently don’t understand the most basic fact: that “evolution” cannot be equated to “evolutionary origins”. Please, quit conflating the two subjects. If Darwin had known what we know today, he would have known that what he called the process of natural selection DECREASES genetic diversity over time, meaning that in the shuffling of genes which produces offspring (in organisms that reproduce sexually) certain gene forms (i.e. alleles) commonly get removed from populations (at least certain populations under environmental stress, let's say), especially during the phenomenon called bottlenecking. Ironically, this phenomenon has been touted as very important to the production of new population phenotypes. And that is actually true, but the reason does not support naturalistic ORIGINS of genes.

Dogs demonstrate many different phenotypes than their ancestor, the Grey Wolf or something much like it. Yet, this does not mean that dogs somehow accumulated MORE GENES than their ancestor. It is a well-known fact that dogs have more diseases than the wolf and they live shorter lives than wolves live. Why? They have lost genetic diversity. So, the fact that you seem incapable of seeing or accepting is that as “evolution” happens (i.e. Wolf-to-dog), phenotypes can expand while the genotypes are actually contracting (for lack of a better way of explaining). This represents supreme irony that is inconsistent with Darwin’s theory, yet very consistent with Creation/I.D. theory.

You’re so utterly confused... I don’t even know where to begin. Not one sentence of this word salad even remotely resembles reality.

Scientific woo at it's worst.

 

[WisdomSpy]

"Origin of Species", that's what his original proposition was - he made no bones of the fact that it didn't answer the Origin of Life questions, his theory only pertained to the change in organisms and divergence of species once life was already underway.

This is the typical fallback position: admitting that Ideological Naturalists have no valid explanation, demonstration or even hypothetical mechanisms for their proposition of abiogenesis, but assuming a false dichotomy that purports everything else to the realm of Darwin’s ideas. Not only did Darwin fail to give any credible explanation for the origin of life, he failed to give us even a hint of any mechanism that could product a eukaryote from a prokaryote, simply to name one of a thousand obligate steps that could credibly explain the building of the “tree of life”.


Analogy: I can brag to you all day long of how I can play the game of Poker. I can explain the shuffling of the cards, the various ways that hands are dealt and changed. I can explain what “winning” means. I can even point to some random processes, like a card getting accidentally bent or torn. I can point out that even these natural processes can be used by a shrewd player to help him win. Maybe I should compose a grand theory and I should write an epic book on the subject. But you know what I haven’t told you about whatsoever? I haven’t told you where the cards came from in the first place… before any shuffling and dealing started. From what I have seen, this represents Darwin’s fail, as well as every subsequent evolutionist’s fail.

Please, provide me with a reasonably comprehensive explanation for the enormous genetic “jump” that took place from prokaryote to eukaryote. Actually, you don’t need to be extremely comprehensive… I would settle for a step-by-step explanation that simply refers to actual mechanisms within cells (not hypothetical ones) that could accomplish that huge task. If you know anything about cell biology and genetics, you must realize that this huge step (like so many others in the “tree of life”) would require the building of a cadre of complex interrelating gene sentences and epigenetic controls that specify the information which the cell could use to “move upward” on the “tree of life”. NS has no power to do this. An accidental transposition of a gene, or even a few, has no power to do this. Gene flow and lateral transfer, and all the other largely hypothetical ideas of evolutionists have no power to accomplish this. How can I say this with confidence? Because I have done original research to prove it to myself. I challenge each of you to do the same.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

So, clearly, you are conflating ideas. I used the word FACTUAL. You cannot say that because Darwin merely proposed a hypothesis that “natural selection” could explain origins, that such a thought represents a FACT. It does not.

Or it could be YOUR misunderstanding - Darwin did indeed merely propose a hypothesis about how species come about by natural selection and as it turns out, his proposition was bang on! We've since observed this process play out in birds, lizards, insects and bacteria. New species have literally come about while we've watched it happen!

The problem with all of you who keep criticizing my posts is that you apparently don’t understand the most basic fact: that “evolution” cannot be equated to “evolutionary origins”. Please, quit conflating the two subjects. If Darwin had known what we know today, he would have known that what he called the process of natural selection DECREASES genetic diversity over time, meaning that in the shuffling of genes which produces offspring (in organisms that reproduce sexually) certain gene forms (i.e. alleles) commonly get removed from populations (at least certain populations under environmental stress, let's say), especially during the phenomenon called bottlenecking. Ironically, this phenomenon has been touted as very important to the production of new population phenotypes. And that is actually true, but the reason does not support naturalistic ORIGINS of genes.

Well, unfortunately for you, as much as it does reduce variability, the mutation rate experienced in a genome, counters this effect and increases that diversity, sometimes by duplicating entire genes at once!

Dogs demonstrate many different phenotypes than their ancestor, the Grey Wolf or something much like it. Yet, this does not mean that dogs somehow accumulated MORE GENES than their ancestor. It is a well-known fact that dogs have more diseases than the wolf and they live shorter lives than wolves live. Why? They have lost genetic diversity. So, the fact that you seem incapable of seeing or accepting is that as “evolution” happens (i.e. Wolf-to-dog), phenotypes can expand while the genotypes are actually contracting (for lack of a better way of explaining). This represents supreme irony that is inconsistent with Darwin’s theory, yet very consistent with Creation/I.D. theory.

Dogs demonstrate what can happen during genetic bottlenecks. They suffer a myriad of problems and all because they're artificially restricted from crossbreeding with other canines to further influence the desired traits fostered by their breeders. The Cheetah suffers from a similar phenomena due to a natural bottleneck that occurred as recent as 12,000 years ago. The same thing could happen over hundreds of thousands of years without issue though, let alone millions, or hundreds of millions of years. All of this is quite in line with what we would expect to happen under the Theory of Evolution. A creation or ID model has yet to make any testable predictions, so not sure how you could say either of those could be more consistent with any observations anyway.

 

[pitabread]

Because I have done original research to prove it to myself.

What research?

 

[Speedwell]

This is the typical fallback position: admitting that Ideological Naturalists have no valid explanation, demonstration or even hypothetical mechanisms for their proposition of abiogenesis, but assuming a false dichotomy that purports everything else to the realm of Darwin’s ideas. Not only did Darwin fail to give any credible explanation for the origin of life, he failed to give us even a hint of any mechanism that could product a eukaryote from a prokaryote, simply to name one of a thousand obligate steps that could credibly explain the building of the “tree of life”.

So much wrong in that first paragraph that I didn't read any farther.
"Ideological naturalists" don't come into it. This discussion, this entire forum, is not about the existence of God, it's about creationism versus evolution.

No false dichotomy is being proposed. Abiogenesis is thought to have proceeded by an entirely different biological process than evolution, so the division is a natural and appropriate one.

The opinions and conclusions of a scientist who did his work 150 years ago have very little relevance to the science of today, which has gone well beyond the work of Darwin. Darwin is no longer considered an authority on evolution, merely respected for the brilliance of his original insight.

 

[WisdomSpy]

You are quite right in observing that natural selection reduces the information content of the gene pool. It is the function of mutations to increase that content. A diverse (high information content) gene pool is required to produce sufficient variation on which natural selection can act. Thus both random mutation and natural selection are essential to evolution.
An example of the "bottlenecking" you refer to can be seen in forced selective breeding, where the selection is stringent and depletes the information content of the gene pool of the breeding population faster than it can be replaced by natural means.

Thank-you for the clarification of your position. I would agree with all of this, except one sentence, and the associated inferences.

You said; “Thus both random mutation and natural selection are essential to evolution.”

I would remind you that if mutations never occurred, gene-shuffling would surely continue and hence, genotypic as well as phenotypic change would occur over time (aka “evolution”). Also, where “selection pressure” is not high enough, the aforementioned changes over time would, and do, still occur.

The inference that I seem to get from your post is that you believe mutations to represent a powerful enough mechanism to product the incredible plethora of genotypes and phenotypes on Earth. If you would only perform the same kind of desk-top experiments that I have done, you would realize that your assumption is preposterous. Also, if you would only read Behe’s accounts of what actually occurred, at the genetic level, over millions of millions of generations of genomes and countless mutations… you might see that your trust in the power of mutations is groundless. Behe states clearly that none of the wonderful and hoped-for mechanisms did what evolutionists keep theorizing that “evolution” can do.

 

[pitabread]

If you would only perform the same kind of desk-top experiments that I have done, you would realize that your assumption is preposterous.

What experiments?

 

[HitchSlap]

Post a link to your research

 

[WisdomSpy]

"Ideological naturalists" don't come into it. This discussion, this entire forum, is not about the existence of God, it's about creationism versus evolution.

You forgot to put the "-ism" on the back of the word evolution. This represents the classic Freudian slip, because you keep failing to distinguish "evolution" from "evolutionary origins". You continue to conflate the two as if they were one. This is typical of Ideological Naturalists, as they subscribe to a predetermined conclusion that "nature" did everything and that "supernatural" does not exist. So, "evolutionism" can certainly be equated with belief in EVOLUTIONARY ORIGINS, which can also be equated with Ideological Naturalism.

As I understand it, this thread began as a discussion of how ID can be distinguished from random natural processes. I was simply adding to this thought that a proper understanding of genes, epigenetics, chemistry and cell biology represents the ultimate proof of ID over the only alternative given ("Darwinism", for lack of a better term--a universally-accepted one which is not prone to misunderstandings).

 

[HitchSlap]

ID is a joke. And just because you think you poked a hole in ToE doesn’t make ID correct. Jumping on creo sites is not conducting “research.” Get a grip.
You have further cemented my opinion that all cdesign proponentsists are hack job trolls.

 

[Speedwell]

Thank-you for the clarification of your position. I would agree with all of this, except one sentence, and the associated inferences.

You said; “Thus both random mutation and natural selection are essential to evolution.”

I would remind you that if mutations never occurred, gene-shuffling would surely continue and hence, genotypic as well as phenotypic change would occur over time (aka “evolution”). Also, where “selection pressure” is not high enough, the aforementioned changes over time would, and do, still occur.

But would not generate sufficient information to produced the required degree of constant variation.

The inference that I seem to get from your post is that you believe mutations to represent a powerful enough mechanism to product the incredible plethora of genotypes and phenotypes on Earth. If you would only perform the same kind of desk-top experiments that I have done, you would realize that your assumption is preposterous. Also, if you would only read Behe’s accounts of what actually occurred, at the genetic level, over millions of millions of generations of genomes and countless mutations… you might see that your trust in the power of mutations is groundless. Behe states clearly that none of the wonderful and hoped-for mechanisms did what evolutionists keep theorizing that “evolution” can do.

What experiments? Why should I care what Behe thinks? He's pretty much been discredited.

 

[Speedwell]

You forgot to put the "-ism" on the back of the word evolution. This represents the classic Freudian slip, because you keep failing to distinguish "evolution" from "evolutionary origins". You continue to conflate the two as if they were one. This is typical of Ideological Naturalists, as they subscribe to a predetermined conclusion that "nature" did everything and that "supernatural" does not exist. So, "evolutionism" can certainly be equated with belief in EVOLUTIONARY ORIGINS, which can also be equated with Ideological Naturalism.

That's pretty much the "big lie" of creationism--that the theory of evolution denies the existence of God and the supernatural. I can understand why you like to tell it. "Evolution denies God" sounds much more important than the truth, which is that evolution merely causes (as a side effect) trouble for the shallow and theologically inadequate biblical interpretation of a Protestant minority.

 

[WisdomSpy]

Abiogenesis is thought to have proceeded by an entirely different biological process than evolution

This sentence is so typical of ideas that represent a classic error of logic. I believe it is called "begging the question". To me, it is a form of diversion from the important issues. You are apparently assuming that abiogenesis occurred, as opposed to any alternative explanation for the origins of life on earth. I would agree that IF it occurred, natural selection would not be one of the viable mechanisms. Yet, why not mutations--some of the same ones that occur today? But I don't jump to the conclusion that abiogenesis actually occured. My knowledge of chemistry and biology tells me that it is impossible. And I am not alone here. Have you read the opinions of Leslie Orgel, for example?
He said: "There is no agreement on the extent to which metabolism could develop independently of a genetic material. In my opinion, there is no basis in known chemistry for the belief that long sequences of reactions can organize spontaneously -- and every reason to believe that they cannot. The problem of achieving sufficient specificity, whether in aqueous solution or on the surface of a mineral, is so severe that the chance of closing a cycle of reactions as complex as the reverse citric acid cycle, for example, is negligible."

In other words, abiogenesis has no basis in fact; only in fiction. I would add that the many large genetic steps needed to create a eukaryotic cell from a prokaryotic cell population by natural mechanisms alone are similarly fictional.

Eldredge and Gould's supposed "punctuated equilibrium" model is a classic example of the fiction which is couched in lot's of "scientific" jargon and then offered as something close to a fact. If you use a little critical thinking, this model or idea represents an admission that much of what evolutionists believed previously, especially regarding origins (and some still do) is false. Yet, this model tells us nothing factual about origins. It basically appeals to an unseen magical wizard in nature that we might call Rip Van Twinkle, who sleeps for long periods and then awakens to perform miracles... which of course you cannot expect Gould or others to explain coherently because these times occurred so briefly as to elude any capture in the so-called geologic record.

"I believe life has evolved on earth through "evolution" and I believe that the evidence proves this, based upon my interpretation and extrapolation of various data. Wherever the obligate data is missing, I will simply appeal to the logical reasons for why it is missing and then, this logic will serve as a substitute for the missing data."
And abbreviated version of this is; "Evolution is the answer... now, what is the next question?"

 

[WisdomSpy]

Why should I care what Behe thinks? He's pretty much been discredited.

I am not asking you to believe Behe's "thinking". Again you conflate two things--data and conclusions. Take a close look at his data. Look very closely at what happened to the genotype of Lenski's bacteria, the AIDS virus, malaria, etc.
But your dismissal of Behe is typical. I am aware of Miller's counterargument to Behe's concept of IC (irreducible complexity). Yet, Behe has defended his idea in many other formats since the publication of his book, The Edge of Evolution. I believe that Miller's arguments have been adequately addressed and proven to be inadequate.

 

[Speedwell]

This sentence is so typical of ideas that represent a classic error of logic. I believe it is called "begging the question". To me, it is a form of diversion from the important issues. You are apparently assuming that abiogenesis occurred, as opposed to any alternative explanation for the origins of life on earth. I would agree that IF it occurred, natural selection would not be one of the viable mechanisms. Yet, why not mutations--some of the same ones that occur today? But I don't jump to the conclusion that abiogenesis actually occured. My knowledge of chemistry and biology tells me that it is impossible. And I am not alone here. Have you read the opinions of Leslie Orgel, for example?
He said: "There is no agreement on the extent to which metabolism could develop independently of a genetic material. In my opinion, there is no basis in known chemistry for the belief that long sequences of reactions can organize spontaneously -- and every reason to believe that they cannot. The problem of achieving sufficient specificity, whether in aqueous solution or on the surface of a mineral, is so severe that the chance of closing a cycle of reactions as complex as the reverse citric acid cycle, for example, is negligible."

In other words, abiogenesis has no basis in fact; only in fiction. I would add that the many large genetic steps needed to create a eukaryotic cell from a prokaryotic cell population by natural mechanisms alone are similarly fictional.

Eldredge and Gould's supposed "punctuated equilibrium" model is a classic example of the fiction which is couched in lot's of "scientific" jargon and then offered as something close to a fact. If you use a little critical thinking, this model or idea represents an admission that much of what evolutionists believed previously, especially regarding origins (and some still do) is false. Yet, this model tells us nothing factual about origins. It basically appeals to an unseen magical wizard in nature that we might call Rip Van Twinkle, who sleeps for long periods and then awakens to perform miracles... which of course you cannot expect Gould or others to explain coherently because these times occurred so briefly as to elude any capture in the so-called geologic record.

"I believe life has evolved on earth through "evolution" and I believe that the evidence proves this, based upon my interpretation and extrapolation of various data. Wherever the obligate data is missing, I will simply appeal to the logical reasons for why it is missing and then, this logic will serve as a substitute for the missing data."
And abbreviated version of this is; "Evolution is the answer... now, what is the next question?"

Abiogenesis did occur--it even says so in your Bible. Abiogenesis is the first appearance of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances. The question is, was it fully naturalistic, or did it require divine tinkering as well as natural forces? My belief is that God so ordered the universe so that it happened without requiring His special intervention.

 

[WisdomSpy]

That's pretty much the "big lie" of creationism--that the theory of evolution denies the existence of God and the supernatural. I can understand why you like to tell it. "Evolution denies God" sounds much more important than the truth, which is that evolution merely causes (as a side effect) trouble for the shallow and theologically inadequate biblical interpretation of a Protestant minority.

Not quite. I would say that Naturalism (ideological) surely denies the existence of “the supernatural”. It’s a short step from there to a denial of God. What Evolution Theory has done (by its inferences regarding ORIGINS, not by its reference to mere natural selection and mutations) is to essentially call God irrelevant and to call his revelation of himself through the Bible a lie.

But this raises an incredibly relevant question: since your profile lists you as “Anglican”, I assume that you believe in God. Do you also believe in resurrection? What is your interpretation of I Corinthians chapter 15? If a God is powerful enough to take a dead and decaying body, such as the historic example of Lazarus and Jesus, and somehow rearrange the molecules in a virtual instant, so that life returns, do you suppose that this God is also capable of creating the many categories of life (i.e. “kinds” of Genesis) in a relatively short period of time… after which a lot of genetically “downhill” evolution has occurred?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

This is the typical fallback position: admitting that Ideological Naturalists have no valid explanation, demonstration or even hypothetical mechanisms for their proposition of abiogenesis,

Not so much a "fallback position", but moreso a position from where to start. There's quite a few viable hypothesese for abiogenesis and the miller/urey experiments demonstrated amply how simple organic compounds spontaneously form from a variety of sterile elements and conditions of a proto-atmosphere.

but assuming a false dichotomy that purports everything else to the realm of Darwin’s ideas. Not only did Darwin fail to give any credible explanation for the origin of life, he failed to give us even a hint of any mechanism that could product a eukaryote from a prokaryote, simply to name one of a thousand obligate steps that could credibly explain the building of the “tree of life”.

Well, he wouldn't even have known about DNA let alone prokaryote and eukaryote genes, how could he? - but we do have plenty of knowledge since to explain how this could happen. The tree of life is the observed outcome of disparate lines of scientific inquiry that have all converged on the same concordant tree of life independently of each other - Paleontology, geology, archaeology, biology, molecular phylogeny, genetics, etc. How does this happen?

Analogy: I can brag to you all day long of how I can play the game of Poker. I can explain the shuffling of the cards, the various ways that hands are dealt and changed. I can explain what “winning” means. I can even point to some random processes, like a card getting accidentally bent or torn. I can point out that even these natural processes can be used by a shrewd player to help him win. Maybe I should compose a grand theory and I should write an epic book on the subject. But you know what I haven’t told you about whatsoever? I haven’t told you where the cards came from in the first place… before any shuffling and dealing started. From what I have seen, this represents Darwin’s fail, as well as every subsequent evolutionist’s fail.

And accordingly, isn't everything you cover able to hone a successful player in Poker despite not knowing where the cards came from? Of course it can! Exactly the same thing with the Theory of Evolution by natural selection - everything we know is still usefully and practically applied to any number of problems, and it yields handy solutions as a result despite not knowing exactly how life came about to start with.

This analogy is a Perfect analogy, good job!

Please, provide me with a reasonably comprehensive explanation for the enormous genetic “jump” that took place from prokaryote to eukaryote. Actually, you don’t need to be extremely comprehensive… I would settle for a step-by-step explanation that simply refers to actual mechanisms within cells (not hypothetical ones) that could accomplish that huge task. If you know anything about cell biology and genetics, you must realize that this huge step (like so many others in the “tree of life”) would require the building of a cadre of complex interrelating gene sentences and epigenetic controls that specify the information which the cell could use to “move upward” on the “tree of life”. NS has no power to do this. An accidental transposition of a gene, or even a few, has no power to do this. Gene flow and lateral transfer, and all the other largely hypothetical ideas of evolutionists have no power to accomplish this. How can I say this with confidence? Because I have done original research to prove it to myself. I challenge each of you to do the same.

I can't wait to see this "original research" you speak of... please, by all means, show this original research.

In the mean time though, Here's a couple of links that can explain the fundamentals for you, even if they aren't genetic breakdowns and gene pathways known to be 100% accurate:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9841/
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/endosymbiosis_03​

 

[Speedwell]

Not quite. I would say that Naturalism (ideological) surely denies the existence of “the supernatural”. It’s a short step from there to a denial of God. What Evolution Theory has done (by its inferences regarding ORIGINS, not by its reference to mere natural selection and mutations) is to essentially call God irrelevant and to call his revelation of himself through the Bible a lie.

If it makes anything a "lie" it is your interpretation of Genesis, not the Bible.

But this raises an incredibly relevant question: since your profile lists you as “Anglican”, I assume that you believe in God. Do you also believe in resurrection?

How wonderfully condescending and snotty of you. I belong to a well established religious denomination whose beliefs are widely known. You may take them as being adequately summarized by the tenets of the Nicene Creed, which I swear to at least once a week.

What is your interpretation of I Corinthians chapter 15? If a God is powerful enough to take a dead and decaying body, such as the historic example of Lazarus and Jesus, and somehow rearrange the molecules in a virtual instant, so that life returns, do you suppose that this God is also capable of creating the many categories of life (i.e. “kinds” of Genesis) in a relatively short period of time… after which a lot of genetically “downhill” evolution has occurred?

God can do anything He pleases. What He actually did do is the question. That is what science is trying to find out.

 

[RealityCheck01]

how it make any difference?

It makes a difference to your credibility. If you write a lie about something as basic as the definition of evolution then how can we trust you? If you write ignorance about evolution then how can we trust anything that you write?
17 July 2018 xianghua: A lie that natural selection is a process where steps are chosen

16 July 2018 xianghua: A dumb question about an elephant sand sculpture.

16 July 2018 xianghua: Ignorance about cars and/or evolution - we do not add parts to cars at random, evolution s not only mutations.